#10190: developer's guide: new chapter "Advanced Mercurial Usage"
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Reporter: mvngu | Owner: mvngu
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.6.1
Component: documentation | Keywords: Mercurial, developer's guide
Author: Minh Van Nguyen | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: | Merged:
Work_issues: |
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Comment(by leif):
Replying to [comment:4 rbeezer]:
> I agree that a multi-line commit can be an improvement. Personally, I
would go back to Trac if I wanted to know more.
That's IMHO a mess. I don't want to connect to trac in the first place
when trying to find out when and why somebody changed this or that. (And
you know how some tickets look like.)
A few people name their patches just {{{6812.patch}}}, and some put
'''just''' the ticket number in the commit message.
It's already often tedious enough for spkgs to map changes to patch levels
(and their changelog entries if at all present; many old ones are missing,
others are less informative).
> So I don't necessarily agree that they should be required or preferred.
At least welcome, if they contain useful information.
> What I have seen is rookie developers put gobs of stuff in the commit
message, with no summary line.
Yes, ''"... and also changed the third word bhfsdifugsdi on line 5628
(right after djshdgh) to ghjgjhgfdsj and then inserted 4 blank lines so
that the line below starting with 'if (x*y+2)<z' is now line 5633 ..."''
> Not pretty. So a more thorough discussion in the advanced section is a
good compromise I think. What would you suggest for the introductory
discussion?
One shouldn't have to (perhaps by chance) read an advanced section to
learn that longer commit messages aren't forbidden (but instead even
useful)... The paragraph is quite long, but doesn't refer to longer commit
messages at all.
A description of them with the commit message of this ticket's patch as an
example in the advanced section is ok. ;-)
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10190#comment:5>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.
